Author
Topic: VP Pick (Read 34365 times)

What a depressing choice the American people are being presented with this year. We are at a point in our history where we desperately need a change of direction in the White House, and we are guaranteed that we are not going to get it. The Democrats are running the worst president in American history, and the Republicans are running a guy who is almost a carbon copy of him. The fact that about half the country is still supporting Barack Obama shows how incredibly stupid and corrupt the American people have become. No American should have ever cast a single vote for Barack Obama for any political office under any circumstances. He should never have even been the assistant superintendent in charge of janitorial supplies, much less the president of the United States. The truth is that Barack Obama has done such a horrible job that he should immediately resign along with his entire cabinet. But instead of giving us a clear choice, the Republicans nominated the Republican that was running that was most similar to Barack Obama. In fact, I don't think we have ever had two candidates for president that are so similar. Yes, there are a few minor differences between them, but the truth is that we are heading into Obama's second term no matter which one of them gets elected. The mainstream media makes it sound like Obama and Romney are bitter ideological rivals but that is a giant lie. Yeah, they are slinging lots of mud at each other, but they both play for the same team and the losers are going to be the American people.

Republicans are being told that they have "no choice" but to vote for Romney because otherwise they will get another four years of Obama.

This "lesser of two evils" theme comes out every four years. We are told that we "must" vote for a horrible candidate because the other guy is even worse.

Well, millions of Americans are getting sick of this routine. Perhaps that is why it is being projected that as many as 90 million Americans of voting age will not vote this year.

Yes, Barack Obama has been so horrible as president that it is hard to put it into words.

But Mitt Romney would be just like Barack Obama.

Those that are dreaming of a major change in direction if Romney is elected are going to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed.

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate....

1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.

2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama's "economic stimulus" packages.

3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama's bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.

16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.

17. Both candidates are "open" to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.

18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.

19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.

20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.

21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.

22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.

23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.

24. Both candidates support the practice of "extraordinary rendition".

25. They both support the job-killing "free trade" agenda of the global elite.

26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.

27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.

28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.

29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.

30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long as the entire globe goes along with it.

32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.

33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney's "conversion" to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital's investment in a company called "Stericycle" that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.

34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.

35. They both believe that a "two state solution" will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.

37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add "signing statements" to bills when he signs them into law.

38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.

39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.

40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.

ARF, the tax breaks are far better "stimulus" to business than shoveling money at companies that fit your political/world view agenda. just as business will look to other countries for more favorable conditions, they will look to other states for the same. states should be competing for business. it would be good for everyone.

to be fair, the page count thing was my fault. i have been playing with liberals long enough to know that they will take anything and run with it rather than discuss the issue at hand. my error for not checking the length of the bill when it finally passed. ;)

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I have to agree with most of it, so it just comes down to voting out the incumbent and hoping the new one gets the message. A few terms of that may wake up a few of the idiots.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

to be fair, the page count thing was my fault. i have been playing with liberals long enough to know that they will take anything and run with it rather than discuss the issue at hand. my error for not checking the length of the bill when it finally passed. ;)

You actually just happened to hit on one of my pet peeves. I constantly hear "2000 pages long", "3000 pages and growing" as a reason that it is a "bad Bill" I don't have any problem with anybody viewing something in a negative light for one reason or another... But at least keep the accusations true.

I constantly hear "2000 pages long", "3000 pages and growing" as a reason that it is a "bad Bill" I don't have any problem with anybody viewing something in a negative light for one reason or another... But at least keep the accusations true.

i think this is something you made up in your own head. it's a bad bill because it's a bad bill. it was an unread, and not understood by most who voted, because it was so long, complicated, and unfinished.

but hey, i can understand why you'd want to keep the focus on things like page counts....

and it is growing....

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Nothing is bad because it is bad. There always is a reason it is bad... Eating under cooked meat is bad because it can contain Salmonella bacteria which can kill your Gut and require you poop in a bag. Swimming in stagnant water is bad because it can have high counts of E. Coli and can make you sick. Killing people is bad because people have a right to life. Driving drunk is bad because it can hurt innocent people. Tending bees without a veil can cost you an eyeball. etc, etc etc.

So what is bad about it now that we are both over the miss-information on the page count?

A bill that removes personal choice and takes away my freedom is bad. Government expansion bills are bad.Doing away with personal responsibility is bad. When the IRS is involved with health care,it's bad.The health care bill achieves all of the above. It's bad.

What personal choice does it take away? I work for X employer and as a benefit of that job I got Health Insurance through Blue Cross. If tomorrow they wanted to change my insurance provider they can without my consent. What kind of choice is quite my job or take what they decide?

I will give you Government Expansion though I disagree with that being a negative.

Nobody buys their own insurance unless they are self employed, so there is no Personal Responsibility. The lack there of is why we have so many hospitals operating in the red, providing services to the un-insured and never getting paid.

The IRS offers a $7000.00 deduction on your health care costs and they have been doing that for years. That is IRS involvement in healthcare and it is good for those who are able to take that deduction.

They can force me to have health care. I will no longer to be able to just pay the doctor for my servoce3s if I want. I may not be able to choose my own doctor.

Health care has evolved from a "benefit" to a "right". This takes away a business right to decide if they wish to provide health care as a benefit. For working couples,perhaps one of the earners would fore go the health insurance for more money in their paycheck.Especially if it a duplication because of joint coverage with a spouses policy.Government should not be in the health care business. Period.If an employer is giving it as a benefit,they have the right to determine the provider. Just as you have the right to work some where else if the current employer does not suit your needs or pay what you wish to earn.The deductibles should be gone too. It is social engineering via the tax code. Bring on the flat tax and get rid of deductibles and incentives.Get rid of EIC in the tax code(also called a gift to those that did not pay that in).Send every one a tax bill for the year on September fifteenth and you will see a huge change in the political hierarchy.

Beware of a government that provides all you need,it is also capable of taking away all you have. It has happened before.

As you can guess,I am not a fan of womb to tomb care . It takes away from personal responsibility and creates a dependent society.

i only have a couple of seconds and i hesitate to get into this with limited time, but i'll try to hit a couple of high points.

without exception, the liberals i know who think obama care is a good thing, also think it didn't go far enough. even the president stated a few years ago that single payer was the ultimate goal. to that end, obama care was fairly masterful. it is designed to destroy private insurance and drive as many people into the government controlled exchanges as it can. it almost immediately sets up a two tiered system where those who can afford insurance or to pay cash will still get what they want, and those who can't will get what the government gives them.

there is no cost control in obama care except to set up the unaccountable efficacy panels. this will further limit the choices and care given to those in the exchanges in the name of cost control.

at some point, it will become apparent that this two tiered system is not "fair", and would work far better if everyone were in the exchanges. the government could control all care, tax appropriately, and the selling point will be...once again... cost control. then the exchanges go away because you don't need them anymore and the government controls all.

to pacify those who still want to pay for their own care and get better care, you can do as they have done in england. you force everyone to pay for national health care but allow a few insurance companies to continue. those insurance companies exist to keep those with money from rioting and so they are allowed to reject anyone they chose to reject. for instance, in england you can by private health insurance and stay out of the NHS, but you can't get it if you have a pre-existing condition. as an example: i know of a woman who struggles to pay for private insurance because breast cancer runs in her family. because of the lack of care under NHS, she has watched family members die.

or...they can chose to have no private insurance and we all get what the government gives us.

i go back to what i have seen in england because it is what i am familiar with and because they are the largest in population of the 1st world countries who have gone to a national health care system. the standard of care for almost all diseases is many years behind ours. neurology, diabetic care, etc are 20 to 40 years behind us. hospitals are degrading for lack of money. equipment is not updated and often is not available. if you need a triple bypass because you have come in with a cardiac event, you can wait 6 months...sometimes in hospital, for that care.

i have also worked on the candian border. there we have a flood of patients coming in for tests and care they can't get, or get in a timely fashon. we take care of their high risk pregnancies, neurology patients, joint replacements, etc.

if this plan had been designed to insure people, they could simply insure them at a far lower cost and without the added bureaucracy. it was not.in addition, it will not control cost. just as throwing money at college students has not lowered college tuition, throwing free care/reduced cost care at people will not lower cost. this also will be used as an excuse for the government to step in.

then there is the other stuff like what people do with free stuff. ever take care of medicare patients? they abuse the system on a regular basis because it's FREE and as long as they don't have to pay for the missed appointments, or the snotty nose vist, what do they care? consider the same attitude extended to an entire population in a generation or two. this, again, is a problem that england faces. they even run public service spots all the time begging people not to go to the doctor for every little thing.....

england has about 65 million people. we have 300+ million people. they have degraded their health care system in a couple of generations and created an institution that they can't afford, but can't get rid of. wonder how long it will take us?

i agree with you that a large part of the problem is with the way we are insured. it is the insurance itself and the idea that we have that someone else should pay for our care that is one of the major problems. there are no market forces in medicine the way it is now.consider something like laser eye surgery that is not covered by most insurance plans. when it first came out, it was very expensive. as more doctors entered the market and more people wanted it, the cost has come way down. i remember when my BIL had his eyes done and it was over 10,000 dollars and he had to travel to have it done. now, a few years later, i can have it done for 2,000 and have a choice of doctors in my own town to do it. if we had market forces in all common procedures and test, with insurance for catastrophic illness, cost for everything would come down because patients would shop for what they needed, and they'd be informed.if we had tort reform all those docs who will no longer do charity work, would be willing to consider it again.

there are ways to fix the system....but fixing it was never the plan.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

As you can guess,I am not a fan of womb to tomb care . It takes away from personal responsibility and creates a dependent society.

I don't know that I would say healthcare was ever a benefit. It used to be mandatory in many situations. i.e Mary Malone aka Typhoid Mary. Look up Mental Institution; now largely a thing of the past, but had a long history of mandatory Health care for certain segments of the population.Read the history of Ellis Island. There are a bunch of run down hospital buildings out there that provided millions with mandatory healthcare prior to acceptance into the USA. If I sit here long enough I could come up with dozens of examples. So the argument can be made that Healthcare went from Mandatory to a Right better than a benefit to a right.

Society in definition is a dependent situation... without dependence on each other there is no Society.

Society in definition is a dependent situation... without dependence on each other there is no Society.

your society might be dependent. and i would argue that there is a huge difference between being dependent on each other and being dependent on government.

you make points about situations where people were required to undergo care or testing. again, huge difference between that and the entire population being dependent on the government for health care.

Quote

I don't know that I would say healthcare was ever a benefit.

what do you call it when it is an expected part of your employment package?

i don't have a problem with states doing whatever they want to do about health care. state mental institutions were a good thing. state/county run charity hospitals were a good thing. the people of the states have a much better time of it controlling health care, costs, etc. at the state level + if they really don't like what the state is doing, they can move. to say that because a state has done a thing, it follows that the entire country should be forced to do the same is ridiculous.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I had read some of the bill back when it was passed but figured I'd better download a fresh copy. This puppy is 1,990 pages in length. Not 400; not 899; 1,990! In my book, that's close enough to round to "two-thousand pages". With Ryan stating "... comes to more than ..." I suspect he is talking about not just the bill itself, which is indeed "two-thousand pages," but to the additional verbiage for the mandates, taxes, etc., that he mentions.

Copying the text from Adobe Acrobat then pasting it into Microsoft Word tells me that the document is 445,264 words. Probably a better metric than page count anyhow. Guess those half a million words were too much for Pelosi. Though I'm pretty sure I could not read this bill in two days and have a full understanding of it. I devour 1,000 page technical computer books on a regular basis, but could not grok everything in the bill in under a week. The language is just too foreign. But then I'm not paid to understand such language. Even the Supremes wouldn't read the entire bill (can't say that I blame them).

What could possibly go wrong with a brand new Federal bureaucracy being formed out of such a massive document? And you know that's just the beginning of the rules and regulations.

Bluegrass, where did you get your copy of the bill's PDF? Where do you get "... HR 3590 [and] is exactly 899 pages long"? My copy came from house.gov.

you can't read it an understand it no matter how much time you have. 1st, it reffers to so many other regulations that you would spend your life looking all of them up. 2nd, it has so much TBD that there is no way to get a full reading of the impact. we still do not know what is coming because HHS is still writing stuff.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

... What could possibly go wrong with a brand new Federal bureaucracy being formed out of such a massive document?...

In a past life I had some up close and personal experience with the procurement process for both the DOD and for NASA.

Buy any Army or civilian Quarter Master type a few beers and he will sadly inform you that if his unit or origination NEEDS five of one item, that he will order fifteen of that item. Out of the fifteen items ordered, the troops or bureaucrats needing this item can expect to receive two or three copies, at most. Five of the original fifteen items shipped will be lost in transit, an additional five of the remaining ten items will be pilfered by near by units because they either need or think that they may need this item and they know how hard it is to get in a timely manner. Three of the remaining five items will go out the front gate on the back floor of someones' car. The unit or agency needing the item will only receive two or three of the fifteen items your government ordered and paid for but the government's records show that they have all fifteen items on hand.

This wrapped up in a used nutty bar wrapper is how government mandated health care or anything else works, and how cost efficient and user friendly your soon to be government health care will become.

Kingbee, I don’t carry dental insurance and my average yearly dental costs have been about $250 a year (couple of checkups, xrays). My folks have dental insurance and end up paying nearly $2000 a year for their insurance. Yeah the insurance pays most of their dentist bills (not all), but those bills are under $500 a year in total. So where does the extra $1500 a year go?

Yeah some goes into a pool to pay for people who need extensive dental work, but those people always get their premiums adjusted up later so the insurance companies can recoup their outlays. The net effect is a TON of money goes into the insurance company CEO’s pockets and his minions. That doesn’t help the people, it doesn’t help the dentists, it doesn’t help health. It just helps the CEOs. How is that a good system? How is that better than Obama care? If the CEOs hadn’t gotten so greedy, maybe we wouldn't the government to step in; maybe we wouldn't need Obama care?

Personally I would like to see a system where people have to pay directly for what they use and cut out these insurance middle men (CEOs, Obama, etc) all together. When people have to pay out of their own pocket for a service, competition works. When people don’t have to pay for every bill, services seem “free” and people abuse the system and costs skyrocket. I would like to see all insurance banned except for catastrophic insurance; which should then be mandatory.